Knowledgeable Human Capital and Education in the Eisenhower Administration:
The Role of Women
Erwin V. Johanningmeier
University of South Florida
Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Historical Society
31 May – 02 June 2012
Columbia, South Carolina
Preface
“Knowledgeable human capital” is used in this work as a comprehensive conceptualization of relationships that goes beyond the implications of the more common terms of “manpower,” “human resources,” or “human capital” that are associated with what is required for economic production. This conceptualization emphasizes the importance of the knowledge and skills that prospective citizen workers must have the opportunity to acquire and the importance of their ability to acquire them. Early in the Post-World-War-II Era, it was becoming increasingly clear to the nation’s leaders that the nation needed more than a supply of able, willing, and compliant workers. It needed highly educated workers. It needed knowledgeable human capital. As Herbert G. Espy told teachers, more than a year before Sputnik, “Gone is the day when work called more for muscles than for minds.”[1] Some were even convinced that “education [was] indeed the crucial weapon in the cold war.”[2] Creating and educated population and thus developing an adequate supply of knowledgeable human capital was and continues to be a social and a political consideration as well as an economic concern because it entails asking whether educational resources and opportunities are fairly, efficiently, and effectively distributed to all citizens. This conceptualization requires that expenditures for education be viewed not as expenses, benefits, or entitlements but as investments. As long as there are social and economic structures that fail to enable all citizens to acquire the necessary resources for a personal investment in education, it is a necessary public investment.
In the Cold War Era, the nation’s leaders had to determine whether the nation had the educational resources (facilities, talented students, teachers, and professors) to produce the knowledgeable human capital it required. They were confronted by the need to expand educational opportunities as well as educational facilities. They had to provide access to education to those who had historically either had been ill served by public education or had been denied equal educational opportunity, especially women and minorities. The needs of and the productivity of education—elementary schools, high schools, junior or community colleges and technical institutes, colleges, and universities—were of considerable concern to the nation’s leaders.
The two issues that framed education discourse in the Post-World-War-Era and continue to frame education as a topic high on the national agenda are the nation’s requirements for knowledgeable human capital, for example, the shortage of scientists and engineers in the early 1950s that has been metamorphosed into the emphasis on STEM subjects as the beginning of the twenty-first century, and the need to extend equality of educational opportunity to all the nation’s children and youth without any consideration of their race, ethnicity, religious affiliation, gender, or their position in the social class hierarchy, now recognized as the need to eliminate the achievement gap between the privileged classes and the disadvantaged populations. That these two issues were related to one another and were being addressed in the Eisenhower administration before the Soviet Union’s successful launches of its Sputniks in October and November 1957 has been overshadowed by the familiar narrative that begins with Sputnik and ends with the National Defense Education Act (NDEA) in 1958.
The Narrative
That the nation’s need for knowledgeable human capital—its shortage of scientists and engineers—in the early 1950s, was addressed by President Eisenhower and his administration before the Soviet Union’s successful launches of its Sputniks in October and November 1957 has been overshadowed by the Sputmik-NDEA narrative. That narrative emphasizes that NDEA provided federal funds for public education and overlooks that its purpose was “to insure [sic] trained manpower of sufficient quality and quantity to meet the national defense needs of the United States.”[3] The attention that has been given to that “technological spectacular,” Sputnik, the “Sputnik crisis,” [4] and its aftermath—increased emphasis on mathematics, science, foreign language, and guidance in the public schools—and NDEA is, in large measure, explained by those who have celebrated what NDEA subsequently meant for federal aid for public education. For example, James R. Killian, Jr., who served as President Eisenhower’s Special Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, later observed that: “Forward-looking government leaders and educators seized upon the public response to Sputnik … to break through the long-standing barrier to federal support of education. NDEA, he maintained, “was a profoundly important breakthrough in the federal support of education in the states.”[5] Those who wanted the federal government to provide financial aid for the nation’s public schools successfully used NDEA to do that,[6] and they were successful in that. As Asa S. Knowles predicted, it was not simply a one time “shot in the arm” to deal with what President Eisenhower thought of as a temporary measure to address what was identified as an “emergency.”[7] NDEA gave state and local education officials access to the federal treasury; and once it was opened, it remained open. NDEA provided advocates of federal aid to public education a rationale—the need to contribute to national security and to the national welfare—and a model for subsequent federal support, for example, the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act that was reauthorized in 2001 as No Child Left Behind.
Before Sputnik
Years before the Soviet Union successfully launched its Sputniks, Dwight D, Eisenhower had expressed his interest in the nation’s need for knowledgeable human capital—then, simply known as manpower—as early as 1947 in his first meeting with Eli Ginsberg.[8] As the Supreme Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Forces in Europe during World War II, he knew that during the war nearly two million American men otherwise eligible for military service were found unfit “because of a mental or emotional defect, and another three-quarters were discharged … for these same reason while the war was still under way.” While Chief of Staff of the United States Army and preparing to become president of Columbia University, he asked General Howard Snyder: How can we develop a study that will reveal the shortcomings in American Life which are responsible for [this] fact.”[9] As president of Columbia University, he organized the Conservation of Human Resources Project in 1950 to answer the question he had posed to General Snyder. According to Eli Ginzberg, Eisenhower’s contributions to the Conservation of Human Project were significant. In a letter to President Eisenhower when The Uneducated (1953)—the first major study issued by the Project—was published, Ginzberg wrote: “I really believe that you had the key idea of how manpower wastes could be studied; and particularly how use could be made of the military personnel records. In short, your contribution was very much greater than that of personal interest and personal sponsorship, great as they were.”[10]
When the Korean War broke out in June 1950, the Ford Foundation that had shown some interest in the Human Resources Project asked Eisenhower whether the university would “sponsor a national council that, while making use of the Conservation staff would direct itself not to research but to policy problems by assessing urgent manpower issues and reporting on them for the guidance of the government and the public.”[11] Eisenhower agreed, and that was the beginning of the National Manpower Council that subsequently served as a model for the President’s Committee on Scientists and Engineers. As Eisenhower was leaving the presidency of Columbia University to assume the presidency of the United States, he related that the National Manpower Council was among the projects he believed would help his administration. It was among the programs that would “continue to command my active interest and encouragement.”[12]
The National Manpower Council addressed the role of women as it related to the nation’s need for knowledgeable human capital in Womanpower in 1957 and in Work in the Lives of Married Women in 1959. In 1954 in a letter to James D. Zellerbach, head of the Council, Eisenhower wrote: “In the pressing world situation, when all our plans depend upon a wise handling of our manpower resources, the Council is doing an excellent job in providing leadership in manpower study.”[13]
Eisenhower Administration Initiatives
While President Eisenhower and the members of his administration clearly and emphatically acknowledged that the states and local communities had the authority and the responsibility for maintaining public education, his administration was increasingly interested in how effectively the states and local communities were fulfilling their responsibilities. Their interest was based on the knowledge that without an effective system of education—elementary schools, high schools, junior colleges and technical institutes, colleges, and universities—the nation would not be able to develop the knowledgeable human capital the nation required. They realized that the nation needed an increased supply of knowledgeable human capital and that the source of that supply was limited by the “lean generation” created by the low fertility rate the nation experienced in the 1930s. They argued that it was now necessary to afford educational and professional opportunities to women that had earlier been denied to them. They not only recognized the need to provide greater access to education but also recognized that the nation would not be able to develop an adequate supply of knowledgeable human capital unless it ceased discriminating against minorities and women, especially women.
To address the needs of public education Eisenhower attempted to secure federal aid for school construction.[14] In 1954 he secured support for the first ever White House Conference on Education that met in late 1955. Commissioner of Education Samuel M. Brownell explained that he proposed having a White House Conference on Education because he wanted “to try to get the local and the state governments to assume the kind of responsibility for the development of education that is essential for our national well being.”[15]
The President’s Committee on Scientists and Engineers. In 1953 Eisenhower “established a special inter-departmental committee[16] to make an intensive study of the actions which need to be taken in order to improve our present situation with regard to the education and utilization of highly qualified scientists and engineers.”[17] In April 1955, Arthur S. Flemming, Director of the Office of Defense Mobilization (ODM) who chaired the “special committee,” presented President Eisenhower The Development of Scientists and Engineers, the report of the Interdepartmental Committee. Eisenhower accepted the recommendation of “the special inter-departmental committee” and appointed the National Committee for the Development of Scientists and Engineers. (Its name was changed to The President’s Committee on Scientists and Engineers on May 7, 1957).[18] When it recommended to the president that he appoint the President’s Committee on Scientists and Engineers, the Interdepartmental Committee urged that: “the committee be constituted of men and women representing the major organizations in these fields.”[19]
The President’s Committee on Education Beyond the High School. On January 2, 1956, in his Special Message to the Congress on Education, President Eisenhower related that there were problems arising in higher education that needed to be addressed. The increasing enrollments in the elementary and the high schools would soon find their way into higher education. For every two students enrolled in higher education in the mind-1950s the expectation was that there would be three by the mid-1960s. The nation needed knowledgeable human capital. There were already shortages “in medicine, teaching, nursing, science, engineering, and in other fields of knowledge which require education beyond the level of the high school.” He acknowledged that higher education was a “responsibility of the States, localities, and private groups and institutions” and indicated that that responsibility had to remain where it was. He was, however, planning to “appoint a distinguished group of educators and citizens to develop this year, through studies and conferences, proposals in this educational field.”[20] On March 28, 1956, the White House announced that Deveraux Colt Josephs, Chairman of the Board of Directors of the New York Life Insurance Company agreed to serve as chair of the President’s Committee on Education Beyond the High School. Josephs’ committee was charged with studying how to provide good teaching and housing for the increase in college students that was expected in the coming decade, recommend how to satisfy the expected demand for scientists, engineers, and other professionals, and how to ensure that talented students remained in high school and entered college.[21]
The Committee Reports
The Development of Scientists and Engineers, the report of the Interdepartmental Committee, the reports and the working papers of the President’s Committee on Scientists and Engineers, and those of the President’s Committee on Education Beyond the High School reveal that there was a growing recognition that the “supply problem”—the nation’s need for scientists and engineers—could not be resolved unless the barriers to education and to opportunities that minorities and women, especially women, were taken down.
The Interdepartmental Committee. In its report to the president the Interdepartmental Committee expressed its concern with the education of women as well as men and emphasized the importance of understanding the potential contributions women and minorities were capable of making. It wanted to remove the “artificial barriers” that women and minorities faced in order to increase the nation’s supply of scientists and engineers. It explained that:
In some fields, artificial barriers prevent the employment of trained scientists and engineers or teachers of them. Despite current shortages, there are women, Negroes, and handicapped persons who are sometimes not permitted to qualify for positions commensurate with their abilities and training. Similar barriers deter many such persons from entering training for these occupations.[22]
The Interdepartmental Committee not only believed that women were capable of contributing to the nation’s needs for scientists and engineers but also argued that training them to do so would pay dividends. It explained that:
The training of more women as scientists, engineers, and science teachers would provide a significant increase in supply. The potential competence of women for many types of work in these fields has been demonstrated. Since women tend to go into the teaching field to a greater extent than men, the training of more women in these fields would pay dividends in meeting the shortage of high school science and mathematics teachers.[23]
The President’s Committee on Scientists and Engineers. At the first meeting of the President’s Committee on Scientists and Engineers, on May 15, 1956, a. Boyd Campbell, President of the U. S. Chamber of Commerce, related that there were “trained women unable to secure a position.” Arthur S. Flemming agreed and related that he had “stressed this point with deans of engineering schools that they haven’t put out a very large welcome mat for women to go into that profession. Flemming further indicated that women constituted “an untapped resource.”[24]
At the time, a third of the women in the labor force were married. Dr. Arthur S. Adams, President of the American Council on Education, observed that “matrimony” made it difficult for women to be career engineers” and that it was “necessary to find more effective ways to utilize competent women without interfering with their family duties.” Dr. Edgar Fuller, Executive Secretary of the Council of Chief State School Officers, suggested that women could do more good as teachers than as engineers.[25]
In October 1956, Marguerite W. Zapoleon informed the President’s Committee on Scientists and Engineers that: “the waste of scientific talent is greater among women than among men.” While there was no difference in “academic aptitude” between boys and girls, more boys than girls attended college. While there were some differences between boys and girls “on special aptitudes important in science and engineering,” those differences, she related, “have been attributed more to environmental and cultural factors than to biological differences.” She further explained that:
The developing and conserving of this scientific talent is increasingly important as earlier marriages, the lightening of household tasks, and the lengthening life span of women enable them to spend more time in productive work outside their homes. Although teaching is especially suitable employment for many of them, some can be more useful in engineering, and in scientific research areas, from which in past years they have been discouraged.[26]